For the GOP, a warning
By Vincent Fiore
web posted May 2, 2005
These days, it's hard to tell just who the majority party in
Washington really is. But according to the last several national
elections, Republicans have won the House, the Senate, and the
presidency. As Bush begins his second term with increased
majorities in both House and Senate chambers, it seems that the
more power Republicans garner via the voters, the less resolve
and political courage they display.
If you believe you sense the beginnings of a commentary that
may be less than complimentary to the GOP, trust your instincts
-- you are right. This space is usually filled with anything but
hyperventilating rants, as I leave the more exercised and
vituperative prose for the posses of the Bush-hating left.
But even dormant volcanoes erupt once in a great while, and
normally ground-in-fact writers can otherwise show the
occasional adverse effects of frustration.
As Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to move ever-so-stealthily
to the right on most every issue that is of consequence,
Republicans cannot seem to find their proper voice on nearly
anything.
Not just Hillary -- though she stands out for the obvious reason
of her future presidential run in 2008 -- but the entire Democratic
Party. Like Hillary, the Democratic Party has acted like
something they're not, and that is the majority party in
Washington.
Sure, Democrats cannot muster the votes to pass their own
legislation, but they do a more than credible job on blocking
President Bush's agenda. Some of the success of Democrats
can be chalked up to incidental events, like the always-helpful
op-ed pages of the mainstream media, along with high gasoline
prices and low stock market performances.
But the primary reason for the Democratic Party's success to
date is its ability to adhere to partisan discipline and unity, and
the GOP's unwillingness to engage them as a majority party.
Early successes aside, like the class action tort reform bill and
the more recent Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, the
Republican-led Congress has had one oar in the water most of
the time.
From the alleged wrong-doing of House majority leader Tom
Delay, to the botched job of touting Social Security reform, to
the breathtaking lack of clamorous support for United Nations
nominee John Bolton, Republicans -- as a party -- have not
done nearly enough to refute liberal propaganda and
obstructionists actions.
Republicans in Congress have done a wretched job at protecting
and supporting the president with regard to Social Security
reform. Senate members have been capricious in their support
and strategy in changing Senate rules in answer to the
Democrats' unprecedented filibustering of ten Bush nominees to
the Circuit Courts.
Equally at fault in this widening gap of leadership is President
Bush himself. Though the vast majority of Americans want illegal
immigration stopped -- even to the extent of closing the borders
-- Bush has developed a political tin-ear on the issue.
Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer are now
outflanking him by calling for tougher border protection.
I can think of no worse a party-dividing issue and majority-killer
as that of America's immigration policy, and President Bush's
widely perceived "back-door amnesty" for some 11 million illegal
aliens in the country today. Discussions on immigration today
are akin to discussions on Social Security 20 years ago: Say the
wrong thing, and you may experience the fatal effects of the new
"third rail" of politics.
Basically though, there is the expectation of "To the victor go the
spoils" that most people are fuming over. Republicans have not
had this firm a grip on Washington for over 75 years. The
country has gone through a mini-realignment of sorts since the
GOP captured the House in 1994. The electorate is decidedly
more traditional and conservative in its social demeanor.
So it is hard to come to grips with the fact that the Republican
Party -- from the president on down -- has behaved like a
majority-in-denial, content to be acknowledged as the premiere
power in Washington, but lacking the iron-will and killer instinct
of latter-day Democratic majorities that dominated the American
political scene for decades.
What do Republicans in Washington say to the millions who
volunteered for the Bush/Cheney 2004 election, giving up their
days and nights to go door-to-door and make tens of millions of
"get to the polls" phone calls, while donating unprecedented
millions to the campaign?
Would they say "Well, we tried, but we were cowed into
submission by the op-ed pages of the New York Times and the
Washington Post"?
Or would they say that the opposition was "Just too tough to
overcome, so we decided to moderate our views instead of
fighting upon the mandate given us by the voters"?
Republican political palsy and its effect on the party rank and file
are as yet unknown. While some are monolithic in their support
for a Republican majority in government, others are becoming
increasingly alienated with the party's lack of backbone and its
political dithering on core issues. By the 2006 midterm elections,
things will be clearer, and Republicans may regret their inactions
upon these very core issues.
Last November, 122 million people voted, or 60.7 per cent of
the voting-age public. That is the highest percentage since 1968.
Out of this, some 62 million-plus voted for a Republican
president, and increased his majorities in both houses of
Congress to work with.
If Republicans do not set their sights on what these millions of
voters sent them there to do, they will feel the beginnings of their
wrath in 2006, and experience the full measure of it in 2008. A
warning to the majority party in Washington: Put up or get put
out.
Vincent Fiore is a freelance political writer who lives in New
York City. He receives e-mail at Anwar004@aol.com.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com